innovative self-concept of micro-entrepreneurs: perception ... · innovative self-concept of...
TRANSCRIPT
Available online at
http://www.anpad.org.br/bar
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2,
art. 1, e170085, 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2018170085
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs: Perception of
Barriers and Intention to Invest
Gustavo Alfonso Barrera Verdugo1
Universidad Tecnológica de Chile INACAP, Santiago, Chile1
Received 17 July 2017; received in revised form 2 January 2018; accepted 13 March 2018; first
published online 23 April 2018.
Editor’s note. Hilka Vier Machado served as Action Editor for this article.
G. A. B. Verdugo 2
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Abstract
The research presented below examines micro-entrepreneur conditions that relate to their innovative self-concept
and the effect of this self-concept on the perception of barriers to entrepreneurship and intention to invest in assets.
For this, I analyzed 5,836 surveys completed by Chilean micro-entrepreneurs who declared maintaining productive
activities in 2015. The results show that there is a difference in innovative self-concept, depending on the age,
gender, marital status and educational level of the entrepreneurs. Moreover, this showed that entrepreneurs that
self-define themselves as innovators intend to invest and perceive barriers to entrepreneurship in a different way.
The obtained evidence is relevant for guiding public policies that strengthen investment and for reducing micro-
entrepreneurs’ perceived barriers according to their individual characteristics. Additionally, the results could be
considered in other emerging Latin American countries, with similar conditions.
Key words: self-concept; barriers to entrepreneurship; investment in assets; characteristics of the entrepreneur.
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 3
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Introduction
Entrepreneurship has been recognized as a relevant activity for economic development, as it
encourages self-employment and economic activity (Schumpeter, 1934). Moreover, studies have
described entrepreneurial activity as a source of job creation and economic growth (Ovaska & Sobel,
2005; Zacharakis, Shepherd, & Bygrave, 2000).
The recognized effect of entrepreneurship on countries’ economic growth has encouraged the
development of research to identify factors that favor or hinder it. These factors relate to conditions in
the entrepreneurial environment or with internal motivations to perform a different job to that of salaried
workers. Two areas of research development in recent years are the study of the perception of barriers
to entrepreneurship (Kouriloff, 2000; Lofstrom, Bates, & Parker, 2014; Sarasvathy, 2004) and individual
entrepreneur conditions related to a company’s results (Hisrich & Brush, 1986; Kozubíková, Belás,
Bilan, & Bartos, 2015).
Regarding the study of individual conditions of the entrepreneur, research has mainly analyzed
demographic conditions such as gender (Henry, Foss, & Ahl, 2016; Humbert & Drew, 2010; Shinnar,
Hsu, & Powell, 2014) and age (Minola, Criaco, & Obschonka, 2016). These demographic variables are
easily identifiable, however, they have limited ability to predict behaviors, since people with similar
demographic conditions may present different behaviors (Camino & Rua, 2012). As an alternative to
the aforementioned demographic variables, in recent years studies of entrepreneurs’ psychological
variables, such as their personality (Miller, 2015) and personal values have been developed (Fayolle,
Liñán, & Moriano, 2014). One of the variables that integrates this category is the entrepreneurial self-
concept, which consists of an individual’s knowledge and belief about themselves at a moment in time
(Hamachek, 1990), as Hamachek (1987, p. 10) points out, “it is our private mental image of ourselves,
a set of beliefs about the kind of people we are”.
Several researches have recognized the impact of entrepreneurial self-concept, self-perception or
self-image of entrepreneurship (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Rhodes & Butler, 2004; Verheul, Uhlaner, &
Thurik, 2005). A term in this area that has received primary attention is self-efficacy, defined as “the
self-perception of individual capacities that affect motivation, personal resources and courses of action
according to situational demands” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 408).
Despite the recognition of self-concept, especially self-efficacy, with motivation and results of
entrepreneurship, there is scant evidence to link innovative self-concept with perceived barriers to
entrepreneurship and the intention to invest in new assets, in the context of micro-enterprises in Latin
America. In these countries, authors such as Ambrosini and López (2006), Muñoz (2011), Valladares
and Lajo (2013), Berrios (2015), have studied the influence of self-concept or self-perception in areas
such as motivation to start a business and entrepreneurial skills. In a complementary way, Vargas (2007)
and Ferrer and Jiménez (2009), analyzed the relevance of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on variables such
as intention to develop ventures and life satisfaction.
Specifically, the relationship of innovative self-concept on the perception of particular barriers
has not been analyzed in the context of micro-enterprises in Latin America, and the innovative self-
concept differs according to its demographic conditions of micro-entrepreneurs. That is, it has not yet
been identified as to whether innovative self-appointed entrepreneurs, present differentiated perceptions
about difficulties in undertaking and intention to invest and/or if sociodemographic variables such as
gender, age and educational level have an impact on their innovative self-concept. Consequently, there
is an apparent knowledge gap.
This knowledge would allow us to understand the benefits of current activities implemented for
entrepreneurship training. It would also help to design programs directed towards specific groups, since
self-concept is a condition that can be intervened through activities such as workshops and coaching.
Chile is considered to be a country of interest, as it integrates the emerging Latin American economies
G. A. B. Verdugo 4
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
(Morgan Stanley Capital International, n.d.) and may represent conditions present in Brazil, Mexico and
Colombia, or other countries.
Theoretical Framework
Entrepreneurship and self-concept
From the perspective of the psychological characteristics of the entrepreneur, investigations have
studied the relevance of aspects such as personality traits (Brandstätter, 2011; Leutner, Ahmetoglu,
Akhtar, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014; Miller, 2015), lifestyles (Cederholm, 2015; Dale, 2015) and
entrepreneurial self-concept (Poon, Ainuddin, & Juniy, 2006). Entrepreneur self-concept has been
studied under different conceptions, using terms such as entrepreneur identity (Akerlof & Kranton,
2000), self-image (Verheul et al., 2005), self-awareness (Connell & Wood, 2005) and self-knowledge
(Lans, Biemans, Mulder, & Verstegen, 2010).
For example, Akerlof and Kranton (2000) define the concept of identity as the sense of self in
economic analysis and point out that it plays a key role in explaining individual intentions for carrying
out entrepreneurship. The relevance of the entrepreneur identity concept has been recognized as a
condition that implies stable behaviors in the field of entrepreneurship activities (Dobrev & Barnett,
2005; Milton, 2009). In this area, Hoang and Gimeno (2010) study the relationship between business
identity and business persistence and Mitchell and Shepherd (2010) have analyzed the association
between the entrepreneur’s self-image and decisions about entrepreneurial opportunities.
According to James (1890, 1950), self-concept consists of an empirical self in quote, which is a
material, social and spiritual component, and fundamental to the understanding of an individual’s
experiences. Mitchell and Shepherd (2010) acknowledge the importance of self-perception for
entrepreneurs as they must estimate coherence between their self-concept and the business opportunities
they identify. In a complementary way, Bird (1995) estimates that self-image affects entrepreneurs’
capacities. To explain its relevance under a theoretical foundation, social learning theory (Bandura,
1977, 1986) suggests that there is a triangle of reciprocal causes, including behaviors, cognitions and
other environmental factors. This means that the perception of the environment and of oneself affects
behavior, and that the behavior of an individual affects the perception of self and of one’s environment.
The relationship between entrepreneurial activity and self-concept has been studied mainly from
the perspective of self-efficacy (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Bullough, Renko, & Myatt, 2014; Hsu,
Wiklund, & Cotton, 2017), defined as self-perception of an individual’s ability to perform certain tasks
(Bandura, 1987) or self-confidence in performance within a self-perceived domain of personal abilities
(Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007). It has been recognized that the self-perception of entrepreneurs’
abilities impairs their performance, since it has been estimated that entrepreneurs are successful in
activities that they believe to be competitive (Bandura, 1989). It has also been suggested that the
motivations of the entrepreneur may depend on their self-efficacy, since self-perception affects affective
and behavioral states (Markham, Balkin, & Baron, 2002), as well as individual motivation and
persistence when developing ventures (Bandura, 1997).
Previous research evidences differences in performance, motivation and persistence of the
entrepreneur, derived from self-perception. Consistent with this evidence, I estimate that there should
also be variation in the intention to invest in assets according to the innovative self-concept of micro-
entrepreneurs and, thus, I propose the following hypothesis:
Ho: There are differences in intention to invest in entrepreneurships according to the innovative
self-concept of micro-entrepreneurs.
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 5
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Barriers to Entrepreneurship
The study of barriers to entrepreneurship, defined as conditions that hinder or impede
entrepreneurship, is relevant (Lien, Lytle, & Komro, 2002), since they help to identify aspects that affect
entrepreneurial activity and, in an indirect way, the economic development of countries. It has been
recognized that entrepreneurship intentions depend on the perception of barriers to entrepreneurship
(Carayannis, Evans, & Hanson, 2003; Lüthje & Franke, 2003). In this sense, Krueger (2008) considers
that barriers perceived by entrepreneurs moderate their intentions and efforts to develop new businesses.
Regarding classification of barriers to entrepreneurship, Choo and Wong (2006) pose as barriers:
lack of capital, lack of skills, high risk, lack of confidence and costs for government regulations.
Moreover, Giacomin et al. (2011) define barriers as: lack of support structure and high fiscal and
administrative costs, lack of knowledge and experience, economic climate and lack of entrepreneurship
skills, lack of confidence and risk aversion. Finally, Donga, Ngirande and Shumba (2016) identify the
following barriers: Lack of financing, market access, outdated equipment and technology, and poor
infrastructure.
Among those mentioned, lack of financing has been estimated as outstanding (Robertson, Collins,
Medeira, & Slater, 2003; Volery, Doss, Mazzarol, & Thein, 1997). In the field of micro-enterprises,
Fielden, Davidson and Makin (2000) emphasize lack of funding as a prominent barrier. In addition,
Villanger (2015) argues that access to capital and lack of skills and knowledge are significant obstacles
for growth. Ahmad (2012) acknowledge the lack of financial support, bureaucracy, lack of credit options
and lack of training as major problems.
The perception of external situations relates to the self-perception of an individual (Bandura 1977,
1986), therefore, it is estimated that the innovative self-concept, understood as micro-entrepreneurs’
self-appreciation of innovator status, should affect the difficulties they perceive from their environment.
For example, microentertainers might perceive some barriers to entrepreneurship as less relevant, since
they consider that their inventive capacity reduces the impact of these conditions. By contrast, they
might perceive some barriers as more important, since they limit the implementation of their innovative
projects. Consequently, I propose the following hypothesis:
H1: There are differences in perception of barriers to entrepreneurship, according to micro-
entrepreneurs’ innovative self-concept.
Demographic Conditions of Entrepreneurs
In the area of entrepreneurial personal characteristics, which are related to their motivation and
propensity to develop ventures, previous research recognized the incidence of different
sociodemographic conditions, such as gender (Brush, Briun, & Welter, 2009; Henry et al., 2016;
Humbert & Drew, 2010; Shinnar et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2007), age (Kautonen, 2008; Lévesque &
Minniti, 2011; Minola, Criaco, & Cassia, 2014), and educational level (Martin, McNally, & Kay, 2013;
Oosterbeek, Van Praag, & Ijsselstein, 2010). The relationship of these conditions has been studied in
aspects such as propensity for entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial skills and performance of the developed
enterprises.
Regarding age, Welmilla, Weerakkody and Ediriweera (2011) affirm that the abilities of the
entrepreneur can improve with longevity. In this sense, Rose, Kumar and Yen (2006) positively
associate entrepreneurial age with the success of their business. Moreover, Bosma, Praag and Wit (2000)
point out that over the years more knowledge of the factors that influence the success of the company is
generated. Regarding the propensity to develop ventures according to age, Karadeniz and Ozdemir
(2009) recognize that entrepreneurial propensity is lower in the age cohort of 18-24 years, increases in
G. A. B. Verdugo 6
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
the stage of 25-34 years and decays again after the age of 44. Most research indicates that the chances
of a venture’s success increase with experience and that the propensity to develop new ventures
decreases with age.
Consistent with these assessments, it is estimated that at an older age it is more challenging to
develop new ideas for entrepreneurship. Moreover, the entrepreneur gains more experience and,
therefore, his/her self-perception should be different from younger entrepreneurs. Consequently, I
propose the following hypothesis:
H2: The innovative self-concept presents differences according to the age of the micro-
entrepreneur.
In relation to the gender of the entrepreneur, different aspects have been studied, such as risk
orientation in investments, capacities and entrepreneurial performance and propensity towards
entrepreneurship. Regarding the relationship of gender with risky investments, studies tend to indicate
that women are more conservative with investment decisions (Raposo, Paço, & Ferreira, 2008;
Reynolds, 2004). In the field of opportunities, they have recognized advantages for both male and female
entrepreneurs. For example, Shinnar, Giacornin and Janssen (2012) point out that the male role in society
facilitates their search for business success. With respect to entrepreneurial capacities, advantages have
been estimated for women.
In this sense, Ferk, Quien and Posavec (2013) estimate greater management skills in women and
Scott (1986) recognizes advantages for women in relational skills. In relation to the propensity for
entrepreneurship Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999) do not recognize difference by gender. Other studies,
on the other hand, indicate that men have greater intention to develop business ventures (Kelley, Singer,
& Herrington, 2012; Verheul, Thurik, Grilo, & Zwan, 2012). One of the causes to explain this difference
is a lower perception of self-efficacy in women (Mueller & Dato-on, 2013; Wilson et al., 2007) and
greater self-perception as an entrepreneur for men (Verheul et al., 2005).
The evidence obtained regarding propensity, performance and entrepreneurship capacities by
gender is diverse. Some studies evidence advantages of men and others attribute advantage to women
in particular conditions. Consistent with previous research, it is estimated that the innovative self-
concept should also vary according to the gender of the micro-entrepreneur, therefore, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H3: There is a difference regarding innovative self-perception, according to micro-entrepreneur
gender.
In relation to the level of training of the entrepreneur, a positive relationship between educational
level and entrepreneurial performance has been recognized. Specifically, a link has been estimated
between the level of training and the acquisition of skills and knowledge that strengthen the
entrepreneurship, as well as the development of positive perception towards entrepreneurship and a
greater intention to develop ventures (Honig, 1998; Martin et al., 2013).
Moreover, investigations have related entrepreneurial education and greater self-efficacy. In this
regard, the education of the entrepreneur seems to strengthen their expertise on a topic, the possession
of relevant experience and verbal persuasion, and consequently on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1986).
For example, Zhao, Seibert and Hills (2005) indicate that self-efficacy is a condition that favorably
mediates the relationship of entrepreneurial education and intention to develop a new venture. Regarding
participation in activities related to innovation, Barrera Verdugo and Bisama Castillo (2016) show a
positive relationship between the educational level of company managers and the participation of their
organizations in research and development activities.
Considering the results of previous research, the entrepreneur training level and their innovative
self-concept should be positively related and, thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 7
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
H4: The innovative self-concept is positively related to the educational level of the micro-
entrepreneur.
H5: The innovative self-concept is positively related to the participation of the micro-
entrepreneur in training.
In the scope of entrepreneurial civil status the results are diverse. Seoane and Álvarez (2009) point
out that having a partner negatively affects the probability of being an entrepreneur. In contrast, Flores,
Landerretche and Sánchez (2011) indicate that having children and partners increases the probability of
starting a new business. In the investment field, Love (2010) recognizes differences in risk orientation
as a function of marital status, for example, it indicates that widowhood leads to a sharp reduction in the
shares of the investment portfolio. In relation to self-concept, Tamayo (1986) shows variation according
to the marital status of individuals.
Previous research shows differences in results regarding entrepreneurs’ marital status, risk
orientation, propensity to develop ventures, entrepreneurial persistence and self-concept. Consistent
with these results I estimated that regarding innovative self-concept and entrepreneurship there should
also be variations, therefore, I propose the following hypothesis:
H6: The innovative self-concept of micro-entrepreneurs presents differences depending on their
marital status.
Materials and methods
The responses of the Fourth Micro-Entrepreneurship Survey, carried out by the Ministry of
Economy and Tourism of Chile (Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo, n.d.), were analyzed. Of
these, 5,836 responses from entrepreneurs were selected who declared to keep up their activities: 3,677
men and 2,159 women. Organizations with less than 10 workers are considered to be microenterprises
(Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo, 2016). The methodologies used to perform analysis were
as follows: first, percentage frequency analysis to estimate the most relevant barriers to
entrepreneurship; second, logistic regressions to relate demographic conditions of the entrepreneurs with
their innovative self-concept; and third, Chi-squared tests to estimate differences in perception of
barriers to entrepreneurship and intention to invest in assets, according to the innovative self-concept
declared by entrepreneurs.
The following are the estimated logistic regression models. Model 1 includes primary and
secondary educational level. Model 2 considers secondary and tertiary education. Model 3 focuses on
participation in training. Marital status variables, separated or annulled, and widowed are not included
to avoid multicollinearity in the results.
Innovative self-concept= β0+ β1*Gender+β2*Age+ β3*E. Primary+ β4*E.
Secondary+ β5* Divorced + β6* Cohabitant
(1)
Innovative self-concept = β0+ β1*Gender+β2*Age+ β3*E. Secondary+ β4*E.
Tertiary+ β5* Divorced + β6* Cohabitant
(2)
Innovative self-concept = β0+ β1*Gender+β2*Age+β3*Training+ β4* Divorced
+ β5* Cohabitant
(3)
The studied conditions of entrepreneurs and their scales of measurement are presented in Table
1. These characteristics are related to innovative self-concept in logistic regressions. The measurement
scales are nominal (dummy) and scalar.
G. A. B. Verdugo 8
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Table 1
Entrepreneurial Variables Related to Innovative Self-concept
Answer alternatives
Age Open answer
Gender 1= Man, 0=Woman
Primary or lower education Yes=1, No=0
Secondary education Yes=1, No=0
Tertiary education Yes=1, No=0
Participation in training Yes=1, No=0
Married Yes=1, No=0
Single Yes=1, No=0
Cohabitant Yes=1, No=0
Divorced Yes=1, No=0
Separated/annulled Yes=1, No=0
Widower Yes=1, No=0
Note. Source: Variables are extracted from Fourth Micro-Entrepreneurship Survey by Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y
Turismo. (n.d.). Cuarta encuesta de microemprendimiento de Chile (EME4). Retrieved June, 2017, from
http://www.economia.gob.cl/estudios-yencuestas/encuestas/encuestas-de-emprendimiento-y-empresas/cuarta-encuesta-
demicroemprendimiento-eme4
The barriers to entrepreneurship considered in the analysis are based on the classification of
Giacomin et al. (2011), who identified the categories: Lack of support structure, high fiscal and
administrative costs, lack of knowledge and experience, economic climate, lack of confidence and risk
aversion. Lack of inputs and lack of financing are included within the lack of support structure.
Moreover, high fiscal and administrative costs include high contracting costs, high cost of regulations
or legal regulations and high tax rate. The factor related to knowledge and experience includes lack of
qualified personnel. Uncertainty about the state of the economy is considered in the economic climate
category. The perception of lack of clients is estimated in the factors lacking confidence and aversion to
risk. Selected barriers are also consistent with Choo and Wong (2006), who pose five types of barriers:
lack of capital, lack of skills, high risk, lack of confidence, and costs for government regulations.
In Table 2, the variables and measurement scales are incorporated in Chi-squared analysis. These
variables are used to recognize differences in perception of barriers to entrepreneurship, depending on
the innovative self-concept of the micro-entrepreneur and intent to invest in the next 12 months.
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 9
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Table 2
Variables and Measurement Scales Incorporated in Chi-squared Analysis
Barriers to entrepreneurship
development
Measurement
range
Entrepreneur self-
perception
Entrepreneur
self-perception
Lack of customers
Most important
factor.
Dichotomous: yes
/ no
Dichotomous: yes
/ no
Innovative self-
concept
Do you consider
yourself
innovative?
Dichotomous: yes
/ no
Lack of supplies
Lack of financing
Lack of skilled workers
High cost of hiring new employees
High cost of regulations or legal norms
High cost of regulations or legal norms
High tax rate
Uncertainty about the state of the
economy
Do not believe that there are factors that
impede the growth of business
Intends to invest or buy assets in the next
12 months
Results and Discussion
Description of perceived barriers
To analyze the perception of barriers for the development of surveyed micro-enterprises, I
obtained the percentage of barriers perceived as being more relevant. Also included is the percentage of
entrepreneurs who do not declare to perceive barriers to entrepreneurship.
The results obtained indicate that the barrier perceived as being more relevant is the lack of
financing. This evidence is consistent with that posed by previous authors such as Volery, Doss,
Mazzarol and Thein (1997), Robertson, Collins, Medeira and Slater (2003) and Villanger (2015). In
contrast, the barriers perceived as being less relevant for the development of micro-enterprises are high
costs for hiring employees and high costs for regulations and legal regulations.
G. A. B. Verdugo 10
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Figure 1. Distribution of Frequency of Barriers for the Development of Micro-enterprises
Relationship of characteristics of micro-entrepreneurs and innovative self-concept
Logistic regressions that relate characteristics of the micro-entrepreneur with their innovative self-
concept as presented in Table 3 show that age, gender, primary or lower education, tertiary education,
divorced civil status, and cohabitant marital status affect the probability of the micro-entrepreneur being
perceived as innovative. Specifically, men, primary or lower education, and older age reduce the
likelihood of innovative self-perception. On the contrary, tertiary education, participation in training,
divorced and cohabitant marital status increase this likelihood.
Table 3
Logistic Regression Models
n=5836 n=5836 n=5836
Prob > chi2=0.000 Prob > chi2=0.000 Prob > chi2=0.000
Odds ratio P>|z| Odds ratio P>|z| Odds ratio P>|z|
Gender 0.844 0.023** 0.837 0.017** 0.876 0.078*
Age 0.978 0.000*** 0.977 0.000*** 0.977 0.000***
Primary
Education 0.817 0.013**
Secondary
Education 0.961 0.697 1.117 0.261
Tertiary
Education 1.265 0.010**
Continues
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 11
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Table 3 (continued)
n=5836 n=5836 n=5836
Prob > chi2=0.000 Prob > chi2=0.000 Prob > chi2=0.000
Odds ratio P>|z| Odds ratio P>|z| Odds ratio P>|z|
Training 1.664 0.000***
Divorced 2.157 0.022** 2.184 0.019** 2.211 0.018**
Cohabitant 1.188 0.087* 1.199 0.071* 1.192 0.081*
Constant 17.967 0.000 16.352 0.000 15.547 0.000
Note. Author’s elaboration.
*p <.10, **p < .05, ***p < .001.
I transformed the odds ratios into probability using the formula:
𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 =𝑂𝑑𝑑 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜
(𝑜𝑑𝑑 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 + 1)
(4)
I noted that divorced status, participation in training and tertiary education are the variables with
the highest increase in probability, with values 68.9%, 62.5% and 55.8%, respectively. For
Multicollinearity evaluation, Variance Inflation Factor Analysis (VIF) was performed in the regression
models. The resulting FV values associated with the variables are less than 1.15 and have an average of
less than 1.1 in all three regression models. Consequently, I estimated that there is no significant
multicollinearity between the study variables.
To corroborate the results obtained in regressions in a complementary way, Chi-squared tests
were carried out to evaluate differences of innovative self-perception regarding entrepreneurs’
characteristics, including the study of married, single, separated/annulled, widowed conditions,
previously obviated by multicollinearity. The results presented in Table 4 are consistent with those
obtained in logistic regressions. In a complementary form they recognize that with married and widowed
micro-entrepreneurs, the proportion of people declaring innovative self-perception is lower, and with
single marital status there is no statistically significant difference.
Table 4
Chi-squared Tests, Differences of Innovative Self-concept by Characteristics
Innovative self-concept
Characteristics
of the micro-
entrepreneur
Self-perceived
As an innovator =
No
Self-perceived
As an innovator =
Yes
Pr Chi2
/F Conclusion
Gender
Woman 328 1831 0.004
***
Greater with
female gender Man 667 3010
Primary or lower
education
No 603 392 0.000
***
Smaller with
Primary education Yes 3353 1488
Continues
G. A. B. Verdugo 12
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Table 4 (continued)
Innovative self-concept
Characteristics
of the micro-
entrepreneur
Self-perceived
As an innovator =
No
Self-perceived
As an innovator =
Yes
Pr Chi2
/F Conclusion
Secondary
education
No 836 159 0.979
Without significant
difference Yes 4069 772
Tertiary education No 800 195 0.000
***
Greater with
Tertiary education Yes 3602 1232
Training No 844 151 0.000
***
Greater
with training Yes 3667 1174
Married No 474 521 0.033
**
Smaller in
Married Yes 2486 2355
Single No 803 192
0.906 Without significant
difference Yes 4702 1134
Divorced No 985 10 0.015
**
Greater in
Divorced Yes 4735 106
Cohabitant No 853 142 0.002
**
Greater
in cohabiting Yes 3951 890
Separated
/annulled
No 917 78 0.745
Without significant
difference Yes 4476 365
Widower No 943 52 0.035
**
Greater in
Divorced Yes 4658 235
Age
average 54.63 50.07
0.000
***
Smaller age with
innovative self-concept
Note. Author’s elaboration.
*p <.10, **p < .05, ***p < .001.
Barriers to entrepreneurs differentiated by innovative self-concept
The Chi-squared analysis presented in Table 5 shows that micro-entrepreneurs who perceive
themselves as innovators and, in greater proportion, the existence of factors that impede the growth of
their business. Moreover, entrepreneurs who perceive themselves as innovators are more likely to invest
or buy assets in the next 12 months. The hypothesis tests of equality of proportion between groups with
and without innovative self-perception are rejected with 99% confidence.
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 13
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Table 5
Chi-squared Tests, Barriers to Entrepreneurship by Innovative Self-concept
Innovative self-concept
Self-perceived
as an
innovator=
No
Self-perceived as
an innovator=
Yes
Pr Chi2
Do not believe that there are
factors that impede the growth of
their business
No 800 4264
***
0.00
Smaller in
entrepreneurs
with
innovative
self-concept
Yes 195 577
Want to buy assets or invest in
the next 12 months
No 698 264
***
0.00
Greater in
entrepreneurs
with
innovative
self-concept
Yes 2394 2242
Note. Author’s elaboration.
*p <.10, **p < .05, ***p < .001.
Regarding differences in perception of specific barriers, the results presented in Table 5 show
greater importance among micro-entrepreneurs with innovative self-concept regarding the barriers lack
of financing, lack of inputs and lack of trained workers, and in contrast, less perceived relevance of the
barriers lack of clients and uncertainty about the state of the economy. There is no evidence of perceived
differences for the barriers employee recruitment cost, legal regulation costs, and high tax rates.
Table 6
Chi-squared Tests, Types of Barriers to Entrepreneurship by Innovative Self-concept
Innovative self-concept
Most important barrier
for the development of
micro-enterprise
Self-perceived as
an innovator =
No
Self-perceived as
an innovator =
Yes
Pr Chi2 Conclusion
Lack of customers
No 674 3593 ***
0.000
Minor with
innovative self-
concept Yes 321 1248
Lack of financing
No 832 3467 ***
0.000
Major with
innovative self-
concept Yes 163 1374
Lack of supplies
No 946 4521 **
0.047
Major with
innovative self-
concept Yes 49 320
Lack of
trained workers
No 976 4686 **
0.029
Major with
innovative self-
concept Yes 19 155
Yes 17 106
Continues
G. A. B. Verdugo 14
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Table 6 (continued)
Innovative self-concept
Most important barrier
for the development of
micro-enterprise
Self-perceived as
an innovator =
No
Self-perceived as
an innovator =
Yes
Pr Chi2 Conclusion
High cost of hiring
new employees
No 978 4735
0.336
Without
significant
difference
High cost of regulations
Or legal rules
No 974 4722
0.514
Without
significant
difference Yes 21 119
High tax rate
No 962 4703
0.427
Without
significant
difference Yes 33 138
Uncertainty about
the state of the economy
No 937 4482 *
0.077
Minor with
innovative self-
concept Yes 58 359
Note. Author’s elaboration.
*p <.10, **p < .05, ***p < .001.
Conclusions
Regression analysis and Chi-squared tests allow us to validate the presented hypotheses.
Differences are recognized both in the intention to invest and to buy assets (H0) and in the perception
of barriers (H1) in micro-entrepreneurs perceived as innovators. Similarly, there are variations regarding
innovative self-concept according to age (H2), gender (H3), training level (H4), participation in training
(H5) and marital status (H6) of the micro-entrepreneur.
Regarding specific barriers, the micro-entrepreneurs who are considered to be innovative perceive
with greater relevance the lack of financing, lack of supplies and lack of qualified personnel. On the
contrary, they consider the lack of clients and the uncertainty due to the state of the economy as less
important. In a complementary way, the results show that women, tertiary education level, participation
in training, divorced and cohabitant marital status are positively associated with a propensity for
innovative self-concept, and in contrast, greater age, primary or lower level of education, married civil
status and civil widowhood are negatively related to innovative self-perception.
After interpreting results related to intention to invest and perception of barriers, it is possible to
estimate that:
Consistent with Dyer, Gregersen and Christensen (2008), who point out that innovative
entrepreneurs develop unique value propositions and can develop new ideas to start a business,
entrepreneurs with innovative self-perception could perceive greater barriers because they require
resources to implement novel and unique proposals.
On the contrary, entrepreneurs perceived as innovative could appreciate less relevance regarding
lack of customers and economic conditions because they believe that their individual capacities
support the acquisition of clients and economic situations.
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 15
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
With the analysis of conditions that relate to innovative self-concept, it is possible to consider
that:
Entrepreneurial and managerial women constitute a smaller proportion of their gender (Berbel,
2014), therefore, it is coherent for women microentrepreneurs to perceive themselves as innovators,
as they are a minority within their gender.
Age favors gaining experience (Rose, Kumar, & Yen, 2006; Welmilla, Weerakkody, & Ediriweera,
2011) and lower adoption of investment risks and less propensity to develop ventures for the first
time (Jianakoplos & Bernasek, 2006). Qualities are consistent with less innovative self-perception.
Educational level and training strengthen cognitive complexity and ability to incorporate new ideas
and adopt innovations (Wally & Baum, 1994). They also favor self-efficacy (Wilson et al., 2007),
therefore training develops competencies to seek new solutions and strengthens innovative self-
perception.
The Married condition relates to conservative values (McAdams, Hanek, & Dadabo, 2013) and the
civil status Divorced and Cohabitant associates with alternative situations that imply differentiation
from tradition (Cole, 2015). This evidence is consistent with variations of innovative self-concept.
As a proposal to strengthen innovative self-concept and reduce the perception of barriers that
affect the development of micro-enterprises, I estimated the design of training programs that seek to
strengthen innovative self-perception and that increase support for access to financial resources, to
human resources and to the necessary supplies for the operation of these organizations. Particularly, I
propose the following:
To implement training and/or coaching programs for micro-entrepreneurs with conditions
associated with less innovative self-concept, to guide their self-perception towards innovation, and
thereby increase their propensity to develop new initiatives.
To develop training programs to improve competencies in the search for financing, inputs from
suppliers and training of staff.
To strengthen programs for financing support, oriented at micro-entrepreneurs with conditions
related to innovative self-concept, such as women, people with tertiary education, participants in
training programs and young entrepreneurs with less experience.
To develop programs for the strengthening of networks with suppliers within and outside the country
that facilitate access to inputs, focused on micro-entrepreneurs with positively related conditions
with innovative self-concept.
The proposed initiatives would strengthen the innovative self-concept and thus the willingness to
invest in assets, a situation that would contribute to economic growth and employment (Orjuela, 2006),
as well as supporting the reduction of barriers perceived as relevant in innovative self-perceived
entrepreneurs. These proposals are consistent with the findings of Haider, Asad and Aziz (2015) who
point out that it is necessary to adapt the training of micro-entrepreneurs according to their
characteristics, and that these proposals could be implemented in micro-ventures from other South
American countries with comparable levels of economic development, such as Brazil, Colombia and
Mexico, which Morgan Stanley Capital International (n.d.) considers emerging nations.
Limitations
The results recognize a relationship between variables. However, it is not possible to estimate if
changes in age, training, and marital status affect the innovative self-concept and, with it, the intention
to develop new entrepreneurial initiatives and the perception of barriers. To detect changes over time it
is necessary to consider experimental or longitudinal research designs. Another limitation is that the
G. A. B. Verdugo 16
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
research does not include interview analysis, focus groups or other qualitative techniques to recognize
underlying causes of the differences found in quantitative analysis. Despite these limitations, I estimate
that the information obtained could contribute to direct public policies or guide corporate social
responsibility initiatives of private companies, which seek to strengthen micro-enterprises and reduce
barriers for their development.
References
Ahmad, S. Z. (2012). Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises development in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia: Problems and constraints. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development, 8(4), 217-232. https://doi.org/10.1108/20425961211276606
Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
115(3), 715-753. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554881
Ambrosini, M. S., & López, G. D. (2006). Investigación: De Mentes y Emprendedores. Ciencias
Económicas, 4(2), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.14409/ce.v2i5.1095
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-
147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
Bandura, A. (1987). Pensamiento y acción. Barcelona: Martínez Roca.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental
Psychology, 25(5), 729-735. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.25.5.729
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barrera Verdugo, G., & Bisama Castillo, E. (2016). Características del gerente general relacionadas con
investigación y desarrollo en empresas de Chile. Journal of Technology Management &
Innovation, 11(4), 65-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242016000400009
Berbel, S. (2014). Directivas y empresarias: Mujeres rompiendo el techo de cristal. Barcelona: Editorial
UOC.
Berrios, J. C. M. (2015). Autoconcepto personal, toma de decisiones y autoeficacia emprendedora en
estudiantes de Administración de la Universidad Nacional de Educación Enrique Guzmán y Valle
(Tesis doctoral). Escuela de Postgrado, Universidad Nacional de Educación “Enrique Guzmán y
Valle”, Lima, Peru. Retrieved from http://repositorio.une.edu.pe/handle/UNE/272
Bird, B. (1995). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial competency. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm
Emergence and Growth, 2(1), 51-72.
Bosma, N., Praag, M. van, & Wit, G. de. (2000). Determinants of successful entrepreneurship (Research
Report 0002/E), Zoetermeer, The Netherlands, EIM, SCientific AnaLysis of Entrepreneurship
and SMEs (ACALES).
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 17
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 63-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800404
Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
Brush, C. G., De Bruin, A., & Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for women’s
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566260910942318
Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2014). Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of resilience
and self‐efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(3),
473-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12006
Camino, J. R., & Rua, M. D. G. L. (2012). Dirección de Marketing. Fundamentos y aplicaciones.
Madrid: ESIC Editorial.
Carayannis, E. G., Evans, D., & Hanson, M. (2003). A cross-cultural learning strategy for
entrepreneurship education: outline of key concepts and lessons learned from a comparative study
of entrepreneurship students in France and the US. Technovation, 23(9), 757-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(02)00030-5
Cederholm, E. A. (2015). Lifestyle enterprising: The ‘ambiguity work’ of Swedish horse-farmers.
Community, Work & Family, 18(3), 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2014.933091
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of business venturing, 13(4), 295-316.
doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(97)00029-3
Choo, S., & Wong, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial intention: Triggers and barriers to new venture creations
in Singapore. Singapore Management Review, 28(2), 47-64.
Cole, M. (2015). Defectors and the liberal party 1910–2010: A study of inter-party relations.
Contemporary British History, 29(2), 286-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2015.1031510
Connell, R. W., & Wood, J. (2005). Globalization and business masculinities. Men and Masculinities,
7(4), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x03260969
Dale, A. (2015). Self-employment and entrepreneurship: Notes on two problematic concepts. In R.
Burrows (Ed.), Deciphering the enterprise culture (Routledge revivals): Entrepreneurship, petty
capitalism and the restructuring of Britain (Chap. 3, pp. 55-72). London: Routledge.
Díaz-García, M. C., & Jiménez-Moreno, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention: the role of
gender. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(3), 261-283.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-008-0103-2
Dobrev, S. D., & Barnett, W. P. (2005). Organizational roles and transition to entrepreneurship.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 433-449. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407910
Donga, G., Ngirande, H., & Shumba, K. (2016). Perceived barriers to the development of small, medium
and microenterprises: A case study of Thulamela Municipality in the Limpopo Province.
Problems and Perspectives in Management, 14(4), 61-66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.14(4).2016.07
G. A. B. Verdugo 18
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. (2008). Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity
recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4),
317-338. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.59
Fayolle, A., Liñán, F., & Moriano, J. A. (2014). Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: Values and
motivations in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
10(4), 679-689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0306-7
Ferk, M., Quien, M., & Posavec, Z. (2013). Female vs. male entrepreneurship - Is there a difference?
Studies of Organisational Management & Sustainability, 1(1), 67-77. Retrieved from
http://soms.ismai.pt/index.php/SOMS/article/view/4/6
Ferrer, C. M. S., & Jiménez, J. M. (2009). Autoeficacia emprendedora en jóvenes mexicanos. ¿Cómo
afecta la satisfacción vital y la inteligencia emocional percibida?. Interamerican Journal of
Psychology, 43(2), 268-278. Retrieved from
http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-
96902009000200008&lng=pt&tlng=es.
Fielden, S. L., Davidson, M. J., & Makin, P. J. (2000). Barriers encountered during micro and small
business start-up in North-West England. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
7(4), 295-304. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000006852
Flores, B., Landerretche, Ó., & Sánchez, G. (2011). Propensión al emprendimiento: ¿Los
emprendedores nacen, se educan o se hacen? [Working paper wp330]. University of Chile,
Department of Economics, Santiago, Chile.
Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Pruett, M., Shinnar, R. S., Llopis, F., & Toney, B. (2011). Entrepreneurial
intentions, motivations and barriers: Differences among American, Asian and European students.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 219-238.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0155-y
Haider, S. H., Asad, M., & Aziz, A. (2015). A survey on the determinants of entrepreneurial training
effectiveness among micro finance institutions of Malaysia. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 6(6 S4), 396-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6s4p396
Hamachek, D. (1987). Encounters with the self (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hamachek, D. (1990). Evaluating self‐concept and ego status in Erikson's last three psychosocial stages.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 68(6), 677-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6676.1990.tb01436.x
Henry, C., Foss, L., & Ahl, H. (2016). Gender and entrepreneurship research: A review of
methodological approaches. International Small Business Journal, 34(3), 217-241.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242614549779
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. (1986, October). Characteristics of the minority entrepreneur. Journal of
Small Business Management, 24, 1-8.
Hoang, H., & Gimeno, J. (2010). Becoming a founder: How founder role identity affects entrepreneurial
transitions and persistence in founding. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 41-53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.07.002
Honig, B. (1998). What determines success? Examining the human, financial, and social capital of
Jamaican microentrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(5), 371-394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(97)00036-0
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 19
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Hsu, D. K., Wiklund, J., & Cotton, R. D. (2017). Success, failure, and entrepreneurial reentry: An
experimental assessment of the veracity of self‐efficacy and prospect theory. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 41(1), 19-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12166
Humbert, A. L., & Drew, E. (2010). Gender, entrepreneurship and motivational factors in an Irish
context. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 173-196.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17566261080001285
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1890)
Jianakoplos, N. A., & Bernasek, A. (2006). Financial risk taking by age and birth cohort. Southern
Economic Journal, 72(4), 981-1001. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20111864
Karadeniz, E., & Ozdemir, O. (2009). Entrepreneurship in Turkey and developing countries: A
comparison of activities, characteristics, motivation and environment for entrepreneurship. Mibes
Transactions, 3(1), 30-45.
Kautonen, T. (2008). Understanding the older entrepreneur: Comparing third age and prime age
entrepreneurs in Finland. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management,
3(3), 3-13. Retrieved from http://www.business-and-management.org/library/2008/3_3--3-13-
Kautonen.pdf
Kelley, D. J., Singer, S., & Herrington, M. (2012). The global entrepreneurship monitor - 2011 Global
Report. Retrieved from http://www.gemconsortium.org/report/48371
Kouriloff, M. (2000). Exploring perceptions of a priori barriers to entrepreneurship: A multidisciplinary
approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(2), 59-80.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870002500204
Kozubíková, L., Belás, J., Bilan, Y., & Bartos, P. (2015). Personal characteristics of entrepreneurs in
the context of perception and management of business risk in the SME segment. Economics &
Sociology, 8(1), 41-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-789x.2015/8-1/4
Krueger, N. F. (2008). Entrepreneurial resilience: Real & perceived barriers to implementing
entrepreneurial intentions. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1155269.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1155269
Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91-104.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800307
Lans, T., Biemans, H., Mulder, M., & Verstegen, J. (2010). Self‐awareness of mastery and improvability
of entrepreneurial competence in small businesses in the agrifood sector. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 21(2), 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20041
Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the
entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual
Differences, 63, 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.042
Lévesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2011). Age matters: How demographics influence aggregate
entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(3), 269-284.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.117
Lien, N., Lytle, L. A., & Komro, K. A. (2002). Applying theory of planned behavior to fruit and
vegetable consumption of young adolescents. American Journal of Health Promotion, 16(4), 189-
197. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-16.4.189
G. A. B. Verdugo 20
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Lofstrom, M., Bates, T., & Parker, S. C. (2014). Why are some people more likely to become small-
businesses owners than others: Entrepreneurship entry and industry-specific barriers. Journal of
Business Venturing, 29(2), 232-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.004
Love, D. A. (2010). The effects of marital status and children on savings and portfolio choice. The
Review of Financial Studies, 23(1), 385-432. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhp020
Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial
intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, 33(2), 135-147.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00288
Markham, G., Balkin, D., & Baron, R. (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: The effects of
general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2) 149-
165. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00004
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in
entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business
Venturing, 28(2), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002
McAdams, D. P., Hanek, K. J., & Dadabo, J. G. (2013). Themes of self‐regulation and self‐exploration
in the life stories of religious American conservatives and liberals. Political Psychology, 34(2),
201-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00933.x
Miller, D. (2015). A downside to the entrepreneurial personality? Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 39(1), 1-8. doi.org/10.1111/etap.12130
Milton, L. P. (2009). Creating and sustaining cooperation in interdependent groups: Positive relational
identities, identity confirmation, and cooperative capacity. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.),
Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation
(Part 3, pp. 289-318). New York: Routledge Press.
Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo. (n.d.). Cuarta encuesta de microemprendimiento de Chile
(EME4). Retrieved June, 2017, from http://www.economia.gob.cl/estudios-y-encuestas/cuarta-
encuesta-de-microemprendimiento-eme4
Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo. (2016, Febrero). Informe de resultados: El
microemprendedor en Chile - Cuarta encuesta de microemprendimiento 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.economia.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Informe-de-resultados-el-
microemprendedor-en-Chile.pdf
Minola, T., Criaco, G., & Cassia, L. (2014). Are youth really different? New beliefs for old practices in
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18(2-
3), 233-259. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2014.062881
Minola, T., Criaco, G., & Obschonka, M. (2016). Age, culture, and self-employment motivation. Small
Business Economics, 46(2), 187-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9685-6
Mitchell, J. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of
opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 138-154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.08.001
Morgan Stanley Capital International. (n.d.). MSCI emerging markets. Retrieved June, 2017, from
https://www.msci.com/emerging-markets
Mueller, S. L., & Dato-on, M. C. (2013). A cross cultural study of gender-role orientation and
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(1), 1-
20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-011-0187-y
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 21
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Muñoz, Z. V. L. (2011, July). La motivación, el autoconcepto y la creatividad, como factores esenciales
para el emprendimiento. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Católica de Pereira –
RIBUC. Retrieved from
http://repositorio.ucp.edu.co:8080/jspui/bitstream/10785/575/1/completo.pdf
Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on
entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442-454.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2009.08.002
Orjuela, F. N. (2006). Elementos para el estudio de la microempresa latinoamericana. Latinoamérica.
Revista de Estudios Latinoamericanos, (43), 153-174.
Ovaska, T., & Sobel, R. S. (2005). Entrepreneurship in post-socialist economies. Journal of Private
Enterprise, 21(1), 8-28. Retrieved from http://journal.apee.org/index.php/Fall2005_2
Poon, J. M., Ainuddin, R. A., & Junit, S. O. H. (2006). Effects of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial
orientation on firm performance. International Small Business Journal, 24(1), 61-82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242606059779
Raposo, M., do Paço, A., & Ferreira, J. (2008). Entrepreneur's profile: A taxonomy of attributes and
motivations of university students. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2),
405-418. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000810871763
Reynolds, P. D. (2004). Nature of business start-ups. In W. B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, N. M. Carter, &
P. D. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation
(pp. 237-243). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Rhodes, C., & Butler, J. S. (2004). Understanding self-perceptions of business performance: An
examination of Black American entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9(1),
55.
Robertson, M., Collins, A., Medeira, N., & Slater, J. (2003). Barriers to start-up and their effect on
aspirant entrepreneurs. Education + Training, 45(6), 308-316.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910310495950
Rose, R. C., Kumar, N., & Yen, L. L. (2006). The dynamics of entrepreneurs’ success factors in
influencing venture growth. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 2(3), 1-19.
Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f7c2/3776a5ad24aeac969fe59d9719524e801acd.pdf
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2004). The questions we ask and the questions we care about: Reformulating some
problems in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 707-717.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.09.006
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Scott, C. E. (1986). Why more women are becoming entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business
Management, 24(4), 37-44.
Seoane, M. J. F., & Álvarez, M. T. (2009). Análisis de los factores que afectan a la decisión de ser
emprendedor. Cuadernos de Economía, 32(90), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0210-
0266(09)70052-4
Shinnar, R. S., Giacomin, O., & Janssen, F. (2012). Entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions: The role
of gender and culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 465-493.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00509.x
G. A. B. Verdugo 22
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Shinnar, R. S., Hsu, D. K., & Powell, B. C. (2014). Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender:
Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. The International Journal of
Management Education 12(3), 561-570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.09.005
Tamayo, A. (1986). Autoconcepto, sexo y estado civil. Acta Psiquiátrica y Psicológica de América
Latina, 32(3), 207-214.
Tkachev, A., & Kolvereid, L. (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian students.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(3), 269-280.
https://doi.org/10.1080/089856299283209
Valladares, M. T., & Lajo, M. T (2013). Capacidades emprendedoras y personalidad eficaz en
estudiantes de una universidad privada de Lima. Revista de Investigación en Psicología, 16(2),
45-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.15381/rinvp.v16i2.6546
Vargas, G. V. (2007). Influencia de la motivación de logro, actitud emprendedora, y autoeficacia
emprendedora, sobre la intención emprendedora en los estudiantes del área de ciencias
empresariales de la Universidad Nacional San Antonio Abad del Cusco (Tesis doctoral). Unidad
de Post Grado, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru.
Retrieved from
http://cybertesis.unmsm.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/cybertesis/563/Vargas_vg.pdf?sequence=1&is
Allowed=y
Verheul, I., Thurik, R., Grilo, I., & Zwan, P. van der. (2012). Explaining preferences and actual
involvement in self-employment: Gender and the entrepreneurial personality. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 33(2), 325-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.02.009
Verheul, I., Uhlaner, L., & Thurik, R. (2005). Business accomplishments, gender and entrepreneurial
self-image. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(4), 483-518.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.03.002
Villanger, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial abilities and barriers to microenterprise growth: A case study in
Nepal. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 115-147.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0974927615586888
Volery, T., Doss, N., Mazzarol, T., & Thein, V. (1997). Triggers and barriers affecting entrepreneurial
intentionality: The case of Western Australian Nascente Entrepreneurs. Journal of Enterprising
Culture, 5(3), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218495897000168
Wally, S., & Baum, J. R. (1994). Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision
making. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 932-956. https://doi.org/10.2307/256605
Welmilla, I., Weerakkody, W. A. S., & Ediriweera, A. N. (2011). The impact of demographic factors of
entrepreneurs on development of SMEs in tourism industry in Sri Lanka (Master thesis). Faculty
of Commerce and Management Studies, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, and entrepreneurial
career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31(3), 387-406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00179.x
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy
of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384. https://doi.org/10.2307/258173
Zacharakis, A., Shepherd, D. A., & Bygrave, W. D. (2000). Global entrepreneurship monitor: National
entrepreneurship assessment, United States of America: 2000 Executive Report. Kauffman Center
for Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Innovative Self-concept of Micro-entrepreneurs 23
BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 15, n. 2, art. 1, e170085, 2018 www.anpad.org.br/bar
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development
of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265
Author Profile
Gustavo Alfonso Barrera Verdugo
Universidad Tecnológica de Chile INACAP, Dirección de Postgrados, Avenida del Valle Norte, 819, Piso 5, Huechuraba,
Santiago, Región Metropolitana, 8580702, Chile. E-mail address: [email protected]. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4488-259X